The Stand

Hideous adaptation of Stephen King's sprawling novel stupidly breaks up the narrative into flashbacks and flash forwards, thus destroying any dramatic tension that might have existed. But I doubt there was any anyway under the lousy direction by a whole bunch of people. Was King involved in this mess?

Narrative aside, most of the cast is awful. Whoopi Goldberg and James Marsden are good. Everyone else stinks. I've never seen so much hammy overacting in one show. And all the blonde girls looks alike.

The timing of this mini-series is probably off. Showing a mini about the end of civilization in the midst of a pandemic might not have been the best idea. It leaves a sour taste.

The show runners here turned King's serious novel into a comic book.

There's a lot wrong here. Miscasting, burning the candle (or story) at both ends, where I assume we'll meet in some sticky middle ground with the characters well briefed even if the viewers are robbed of the momentum that would have built from the novels original structure. It's a journey. A horrific line to walk and SK planned it perfectly. There's a reason Dorothy and Toto didn't have cabs on the Yellow Brick Road. Some of us WANT to see the flying monkeys. FOR INSTANCE: I miss Larry's escape from NY by way of a corpse infested tunnel. I miss the sheriff who saved Nick and allowed him to become jail warden as he grew too ill for the job. And the gentle insight given as Nick took care of and fed his assailants through the bars of their prison cells, and comforted his torturers as they died. I miss Nadines hallmark red hair. It screamed for hundreds of pages. Until it didn't. Hemingford Home was in Nebraska, but-snip snip! Colorado it is. We were in the CDC for many days. Many days. Begging for info on many neighbors. Those names aren't here, and the neighborhood didn't burn away with fever in this version. THAT community of Stu's didn't ever exist in this show. . . .And the MISCASTING X 10 (take your pick). So much atmosphere from the novel excised, the leftover scenes flicker by so swiftly you realize they bit off more than they could chew in the hours allotted. Stuff it as much as you want, and maybe the characters will finally develop by the time the final battle rolls around. But. . . Judging by the time jumps, THESE characters are static compared to their novel counterparts. I can't even tell they've been on a journey. Oh that's right. There's safety in numbers and the series grouped everyone together hyper fast. Going the path solo in the black night was where I felt my palms sweat. Not in a sunlit room with 20 friends. That part DOES COME, but later. I only wish it didn't cost us each characters solo journey to that bright room. Nighttime in a dead world where you're alone and clueless makes for a terrifying journey. But our guys found an "alternate route" it seems (I say this as more and more is added weekly, but it's nothing compared to the lacking atmosphere). The book was a death march. We chose our paths and the stakes climbed with the days, while the nights were filled with horrifying and strange noises. An anxiety attack on a roller coaster with a courtesy espresso before the ride hit its stride. This series, however, is a drowsy stroll. Like waking from a car nap, you orientate yourself and see how far you've come, and then decide if you should care about where you're at or just black out again. Many separate and small altercations aren't nearly as intimidating as a dreadful marathon filled with a variety of unpredictable dangers. All tension evaporates each time the show flashes forward (or backwards). The tension bottoms out because we are provided relief at the worst time. Horror fans being given thoughtful intermissions (for the delicate viewer out there). It feels like that anyway. And it also renders this risky journey moot. When you see our guys at The Free Zone you don't fear for them in the flashbacks. You KNOW they made it safe and sound. Leaving The Past neutered and without teeth. If you skip the book even though you enjoyed the series you are doing yourself a disservice. If you read "The Stand" and "'Salem's Lot", you'll either be addicted, or once again showing your face at church on Sundays. AND FOR NON READERS of the book who feel they have the right to call long time fans whiny and our viewpoints invalid, you should just keep those opinions to yourselves. If a man could watch just ONE film during his life: "Battlefied Earth", or "Alien", but chose "Battlefied Earth". That's the predicament I see in these reviews. OF COURSE these "non-book" folks think the series is great. They have NO idea of what they're missing.

Unlike others who have seen the 1994 version and read the book, I do not completely hate this version, although it is quite mediocre for several reasons, it does have a few merits. I suppose this serves as a decent introductory for the book, but despite it's upgraded production values, it falls short of the 1994 min-series, and doesn't cover much ground the 1994 series does, despite a 4hr longer length, which is just bizarre. I also want to note that people always like to say, who have not read the book, "Your opinion doesn't matter because you read the book, shut up", and vice versa, can we not take a different approach? I think if a movie or series is based on a book, it must please both those who don't know the book, and those who do, or why adapt a work at all?

Adapting Stephen King will always be a mixed bag. King's fans may be difficult to please at times, but "The Shining" is a great example of how you don't have to exactly follow the book to make a good adaptation. I find both merits in the 1980 film and 1997 mini-series of "The Shining". The "Dr. Sleep" movie, however, was not great, it had it's moments, but in being a direct sequel to "The Shining" and relying too heavily on flashbacks, it lost it's power. "The Dead Zone", movie, not TV show, is a fantastic adaptation that, again, gets the gist of the book, but still makes a fair amount of changes, it is very effective. So, for those who don't read King, no, you don't have to be entirely faithful to his works to please. However, "The Stand", to me, is so singular of a work, it does require it to, at the very least, be faithful in tone and to the characters, and the spirit of the book, and for me, this is the primary way the new adaptation misses it's mark.

The sequencing on the series, in my opinion, is largely to blame, and the ridiculous amount of screen time given to Harold, he is just focused on far too much. The sequencing is out of order for about 6 episodes, and what this does, is make it incredibly hard to connect to ANY character. I did not feel any connection to the characters until they began "The Walk". This isn't the completely fault of the script, but rather mostly the sequencing, it really kills the characters and story. The story needs that buildup from pre-super flu to super flu sweeping through the world, to the very end, it gives us an attachment to the characters. This is detrimental to the story because the story IS about the characters and how they cope with the world essentially being reset, and their growth, in some cases from awful people, to okay or really good people. Without the connection to the characters, it feels more like a random sequence of events than anything else.

I don't dislike Whoopi Goldberg as an actress, but the script and her interpretation are to blame here. Mother Abigail becomes not a grandmotherly ethereal character, which she is supposed to be, but rather a cranky old woman. It seems they tried to make her more flawed, she isn't perfect in the book or other adaptation, and in doing so, lost the core of her character. They also, for some bizarre reason, entirely changed what Hemmingford Home is. No idea why, and I do believe that is important, Hemmingford Home is an important place in the book, to mother Abigail and the characters. It feels hollow and empty here, almost an aside.

Fran also becomes a morose and obnoxious character, who honestly just is not likeable at all, even if you hated Molly Ringwald's version, I hope we can agree, that Fran should be likeable. Stu is also a paper thin character here, I have read so many complaints of Gary Sinise' version, but really? James Marsden is okay in some roles, but he is not a good Stu, he ads no levity to the character and plays him far too straight. Sinise' Stu was more complex, not because of the script, but because of the emotional depth Sinise gave him. Also, Amber Heard, as Nadine is pretty annoying. They tried to give her character a little more depth, but outside of the final episode she is in, it just came across as annoying, because she essentially is nothing more than a closet satanist in this version, with a weird mother complex, and it actually gives her zero depth, maybe with a better actress who could have fleshed the character out, it would have worked. . I agree with others, in that, taking away the rape aspect was indeed a misfire because Flagg is a despicable person, this is really the first time we see how awful he actually is.

However, the 2 biggest problems, because Mother Abigail, have to be Nick and Tom, this is a REALLY important part of the story, and they do not at all cover this relationship in this version of the stand, not at all. Also, I found the interpretation by Bill Fagerbakke so much more human, whereas Brad William Henke's version borderline offensive and a total caricature. The script is largely to blame by adding in some dialogue that is incredibly annoying, and makes Tom nearly unbearable to watch. Nick's character is also skewered, we don't get to know him, and he comes across as this almost messianic martyr, with absolutely no depth. The parts between Tom and Nick in the old adaptation are some of my favorite parts, they have a fun chemistry and they do some good character building, even without too much background.

Alexander Skarsgaard is not a bad actor, and he does what he can with the role, but I felt it was even more limited here than in the old adaptation, and no less cheesy. The cheese was just as thick here as in the old version, although, a bit less stagey in execution. Despite the Mullet, Jamey Sheridan does a better job with Flagg, and even though the effects are dated, they hold up just fine.

Trash can is also woefully absent, and comes across as far too unhinged, love or hate Matt Frewer's rendition, it is still better than the absurdly ridiculous AND low-screen time version of trash can. In the book, you actually feel some empathy for him, neither version of the book achieves this though, and they had a good opportunity to flesh Trash Can out, they totally missed it, 100%, and again took far too much screen time up on the annoying Harold. Again, Harold may be important, but the worst decision they made was making him more of a focal point than several other characters. I preferred him in in the 1994 version a heck of a lot more, despite it not being totally faithful, it caught the essence of his character.

All in all, I am not saying this isn't somewhat enjoyable, it had it's moments, but on the whole, I got bored pretty quick. By not giving enough time to some characters, and then bringing in minor characters, it really becomes a lopsided affair with a narrative style that hurts the story. It virtually tells the same story as the 1994 version, but choppy sequencing that hurts the characters and story, and with little character development, aside from Harold, and turns a story of hope into a story that feels angry and resentful. It's not bad, it's just mediocre.

It's a nine part TV adaptation of the Stephen King novel of good versus evil. It's not any better than the 1994 version. More money may have been spent but it's not better. The structure is more disjointed which leaves the characters less compelling. I don't like Whoopi Goldberg in this role. The last episode feels stretched out which leaves it without tension. After the climax, the series needs to end. It's an unnecessary update of this material. If it needs doing, it needs some better imagination to bring new life to the story.

I've read a few reviews from Stephen King groupies...and fair enough. The 1994 series had me mesmerized, though I had let it slip from memory. So this was exciting. Really if life came down to these characters, we are mince. It's so hard to identify with the 'righteous' at times, they seem oblivious to the world they're in. And the 'unclean' are really bland, the depravity is what you'd see going on if the world never went through this 'apocalypse' anyway. There is no awe at the Man himself, though he presents as the most watchable character...I don't know if there is enough going on to pique the interest to see it through.